Progression of Pilot Trials to Completed Randomized Controlled Trials in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Annals of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000004182
Andrew T Chen, Tara Behroozian, Tal Levit, Faisal Quadri, Patrick J Kim, Lucas Gallo, Jeslyn Chen, Ted Zhou, Dalya Cohen, Emily Dunn, Achilles Thoma
{"title":"Progression of Pilot Trials to Completed Randomized Controlled Trials in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Andrew T Chen, Tara Behroozian, Tal Levit, Faisal Quadri, Patrick J Kim, Lucas Gallo, Jeslyn Chen, Ted Zhou, Dalya Cohen, Emily Dunn, Achilles Thoma","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Well-designed pilot trials are essential in determining feasibility prior to initiating definitive randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their implementation into clinical practice. The primary outcome of this study was to identify the number of pilot or feasibility studies in Plastic Surgery that progressed to a definitive RCT. Secondary outcomes included a) number of pilot studies expressing feasibility statements and outcomes and b) reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for all pilot RCTs and definitive RCTs in plastic surgery between 2012-2023. Pilot trials were matched to definitive RCTs by keyword, author, and citation report. Feasibility outcomes were presented using descriptive statistics. Reporting quality was evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 randomized pilot and feasibility trials extension.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 11,540 and 6035 citations screened in 2 separate literature searches, 171 pilot studies and 779 definitive RCTS were included, respectively. Ten (5.8%) pilot studies were associated with a completed RCT, 4 (2.3%) were in progress, and 2 (1.2%) were stopped. For studies that did not progress to a definitive RCT, \"inadequate funding\" (n = 11, 41.4%) was the most cited reason followed by \"insufficient efficacy to justify study progression\" (n = 5, 17.3%). The average reporting adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials items was 65.6% (SD 16). Fifty (29.2%) pilot RCTs reported a feasibility statement and 30 (17.5%) reported feasibility outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Few pilot trials in plastic surgery progressed to a definitive RCT, and most did not present feasibility statements or outcomes. Pilot studies should precede RCTs and include clear feasibility statements and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004182","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Well-designed pilot trials are essential in determining feasibility prior to initiating definitive randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their implementation into clinical practice. The primary outcome of this study was to identify the number of pilot or feasibility studies in Plastic Surgery that progressed to a definitive RCT. Secondary outcomes included a) number of pilot studies expressing feasibility statements and outcomes and b) reporting quality.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for all pilot RCTs and definitive RCTs in plastic surgery between 2012-2023. Pilot trials were matched to definitive RCTs by keyword, author, and citation report. Feasibility outcomes were presented using descriptive statistics. Reporting quality was evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 randomized pilot and feasibility trials extension.

Results: Among 11,540 and 6035 citations screened in 2 separate literature searches, 171 pilot studies and 779 definitive RCTS were included, respectively. Ten (5.8%) pilot studies were associated with a completed RCT, 4 (2.3%) were in progress, and 2 (1.2%) were stopped. For studies that did not progress to a definitive RCT, "inadequate funding" (n = 11, 41.4%) was the most cited reason followed by "insufficient efficacy to justify study progression" (n = 5, 17.3%). The average reporting adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials items was 65.6% (SD 16). Fifty (29.2%) pilot RCTs reported a feasibility statement and 30 (17.5%) reported feasibility outcomes.

Conclusions: Few pilot trials in plastic surgery progressed to a definitive RCT, and most did not present feasibility statements or outcomes. Pilot studies should precede RCTs and include clear feasibility statements and outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从试点试验到完成的整形外科随机对照试验的进展:一项系统综述。
目的:设计良好的试点试验在确定最终随机对照试验(rct)的可行性并将其应用于临床实践之前至关重要。本研究的主要结果是确定在整形外科中进行的试点或可行性研究的数量,这些研究进展为确定的随机对照试验。次要结局包括a)表达可行性陈述和结果的试点研究数量和b)报告质量。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和clinicaltrials.gov,检索2012-2023年整形外科的所有试点rct和最终rct。根据关键词、作者和引文报告将试点试验与确定的随机对照试验相匹配。可行性结果采用描述性统计。采用《2010年试验报告综合标准》随机试验和可行性试验扩展版对报告质量进行评价。结果:在2个独立文献检索中筛选的11,540和6035个引文中,分别纳入了171个先导研究和779个确定的随机对照试验。10项(5.8%)试点研究与完成的RCT相关,4项(2.3%)正在进行中,2项(1.2%)已停止。对于没有进展到确定的RCT的研究,“资金不足”(n = 11, 41.4%)是引用最多的原因,其次是“疗效不足,不足以证明研究进展”(n = 5, 17.3%)。报告试验综合标准项目的平均依从性为65.6% (SD 16)。50个(29.2%)试点随机对照试验报告了可行性声明,30个(17.5%)报告了可行性结果。结论:很少有整形外科的试点试验进展为明确的随机对照试验,大多数没有提出可行性声明或结果。试点研究应先于随机对照试验,并包括明确的可行性声明和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Hourglass Constriction of a Single Fascicle of the Anterior Interosseous Nerve: A Case Report. Interprogram Differences in Core General, Core Plastic, and Plastic Surgery-Adjacent Training. Simple Approach to Cosmetic Medial Epicanthoplasty: A Modification of the Skin Redraping Method. The Impact of International Fellowship on Research Productivity: International Fellowship on Research Productivity. Mandible Fracture Outcome Disparities in the Incarcerated Patient Population.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1